HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2024-10-01BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
9:00 a.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s YouTube channel and recorded and posted
to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS
AGENDA APPROVAL
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Board of Adjustment Minutes dated August 6, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address).
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Variance to Side Setback 1041 Pine Lane Planner Washam
2.Variance to River Setback 375 Moraine Ave Senior Planner Hornbeck
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.Upcoming meeting items
ADJOURN
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
September 19, 2024 1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 6, 2024
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the Town of
Estes Park on August 6, 2024.
Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice-Chair Newsom, Member Holtzman, Senior Planner
Hornbeck, Director Steve Careccia, Floodplain Administrator Jennifer Waters, Recording
Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: none
Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. There were 12 people in
attendance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 3-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the Consent
Agenda. The motion passed 2-0, with Newsom abstaining.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Variance to Lot Coverage Continental Peaks Circle Senior Planner Hornbeck
Staff requested this item be withdrawn.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to withdraw the variance
request. The motion passed 3-0.
2. Variance Request 2842 Fall River Rd Senior Planner Hornbeck
The Board of Adjustment first considered a variance for the property on July 2, 2024.
The Board voted to continue the request to a future meeting date. Based on
feedback from the Board at the July meeting, the applicant has revised the
application to define the annual high-water mark of the river in accordance with
EPDC requirements. This Memo and Project Analysis reflect the revised application
and request for an encroachment of 6.8 feet rather than the previous request of five
feet into the 50-foot river setback.
Staff recommended denying the request, stating that the applicant could decrease
the deck size or locate the house north of the private drive. The lot is undeveloped,
so the applicant is not constrained by existing development or structures.
Redesigning the home and/or deck is a viable alternative at this time. Public Works
submitted a letter stating they are okay with the new plans as they pertain to the high
water mark.
DISCUSSION:
.
Angela Walter, applicant, reiterated concerns about changing the submitted building
plans, including deck and house square footage and the inability to build to the
north.
Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, explained that the elevated deck setback is
to the deck, not to the posts, which is what counts. A detailed look into the high
water mark using the vegetation line in the river was done to get a definitive line.
Flooding concerns were reviewed using a cross-section of the river. The deck is
eight feet above the FEMA 100-year water surface elevation.
Chair Moreau stated that he would like concrete deck piers 18 inches above the BFE
on the 100-year floodplain, which Sheldon agreed to.
3
Board of Adjustment, August 6, 2024 – Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance request
with the agreement that the deck piers be concrete and installed above the
flood level. The motion passed 3-0.
3. Variance to Grading and Site Disturbance Standards 2365 Big Thompson Ave
Senior Planner Hornbeck
The Board of Adjustment first considered variances for the property on June 4, 2024.
The Board voted to continue the request to a future meeting date. Based on
feedback from the Board at the June meeting, the applicant has revised the
application to lower the maximum retaining wall height to 12' rather than the
previously requested height of 23'. The change was made possible by collaborating
with the Fire District to reduce the size of the emergency vehicle turnaround to allow
for two shorter retaining walls with a terrace between them. This Memo and Project
Analysis reflect the revised application and request for 12' retaining walls.
The existing accommodations use on the subject parcel, Olympus Lodge, is
proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new hotel. The property is located
in unincorporated Larimer County, and the applicant has submitted a petition to
annex the property into the Town of Estes Park, a Development Plan for the
proposed hotel, and the subject variance requests. The Annexation and
Development Plan remain under review, and no formal action is scheduled. Staff
recommended approval of the variance requests with conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Jodi Newton, Master Works, LLC, on behalf of the applicant, 2Combs Enterprises.
Significant modifications have been made to upgrade the hotel's architecture.
Employee housing has also been added to the plans. The northwest and west walls
will be terraced and undulated. The walls will be covered with high-grade stone
materials. Rail fence with wire mesh will be included in the Development Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Glen Brett, 2370 Bellvue Dr, would like to know more about the parking lot's lighting
and architecturally enhanced fence.
Chair Moreau stated that those questions should be addressed to the Planning
Commission when the Development Plan is heard.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance
requests to allow the original, natural grade to be lowered by up to 25 feet
rather than the maximum of 10 feet, to allow retaining wall heights up to 12
feet rather than the maximum of 6 feet, and to allow retaining wall terrace less
than 5 feet in width with findings as outlined in the staff report and subject to
the following conditions and no bare concrete will be exposed in the retaining
walls and that it shall be made or veneered with natural-looking materials:
1. An architecturally enhanced fence or railing shall be provided on top of all
retaining walls where determined necessary for public safety, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission;
2. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from the view of
surrounding properties and private or public roadways. Screening methods
shall be consistent with the style, materials, and colors of the primary building.
Such screening details shall be depicted on the Development Plan and
subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission; and
4
Board of Adjustment, August 6, 2024 – Page 3
3. All retaining walls visible from adjoining properties or from private or public
roadways shall be faced with wood, stone, or other earth-colored materials
that blend with the surrounding natural landscape and provide an
architecturally enhanced design. Such materials and design shall be depicted
on the Development Plan and subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission.
The motion passed 3-0.
REPORTS:
None
With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
5
6
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Kara Washam, Planner I
Date: October 1, 2024
Application: Variance Request for Side (East) Setback
1041 Pine Lane, Estes Park
Steven and Janet Hood, Owners/Applicants
Michael Daley, Architect, Consultant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land
Use): Neighborhood Village
Zoning District: Two-Family Residential (R-2)
Site Area: 0.98 Acres (+/- 42,759 SF)
☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE
☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
The Applicant requests approval of a variance to reduce the side setback along the
east property line to three feet (3') in lieu of the ten feet (10') side setback required in
the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Zone District under Section 4.3.C.4. (Table 4-2) of
the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
Background:
The subject property is in the Lake View Tracts Subdivision and contains one single-
family residence constructed in 1963 and a small cabin also constructed in 1963 that is
currently used as a short-term rental (VHL# 021-21). The lot is 0.98 acres and is
conforming to dimensional standards and use. Existing access to the property is by a
gravel driveway from Pine Lane.
7
2
The Applicants/Owners purchased the property in 2014 as a vacation/second home with
plans to retire to the residence full time and construct an attached garage. When the
Applicants purchased the property, they received an Improvement Location Certificate
(ILC) from Green Mountain Survey dated November 13, 2014 (Attachment 3). The ILC
incorrectly showed the building setback between the existing residence and the east
property line as 29’ +/- at the narrowest point. This measurement led the Applicants to
believe that the proposed attached garage would meet the 10’ setback requirement.
The Applicants have now reached retirement and wish to proceed with constructing an
attached garage. However, a recent site plan of the lot done by Van Horn Engineering,
dated July 26, 2024, shows the existing building setback as 19.8’, nearly 10 feet less
than what the Applicants were told when they purchased the property (Attachment 4).
Variance Description
The Applicants request a variance to allow a reduced side setback of three feet (3')
along the east property line in lieu of the ten feet (10') side setback required in the R-
2 (Two-Family Residential) Zone District. The Applicants propose to construct an
attached garage with a new access drive and will remove the existing driveway.
Proposed Site Plan
8
3
Location and Context:
The 0.98-acre lot is located at 1041 Pine Lane, approximately 400’ southeast of the
intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (Hwy 34) and Hillside Lane. The subject property
and the majority of adjacent properties are zoned R-2 (Two-Family Residential) except
the parcel to the north, which is zoned A (Accommodations).
Vicinity Map
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Comprehensive Plan (2022) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Neighborhood Village R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Residential
North Mixed-Use Centers and
Corridors A (Accommodations) Self-Storage
South Neighborhood Village R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Residential
East Neighborhood Village R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Residential
West Neighborhood Village R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Residential
9
4
Zoning Map
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are
not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. Practical
difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards,
provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or
impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this
Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding: Special conditions exist due to the topography on the west side of
the property. The existing residence was constructed on top of a rock
outcropping with an approximately 20’ drop-off on the west side. An attached
garage on the west side of the property would not be feasible, resulting in the
east side of the property as the only suitable location for the development of an
attached garage.
10
5
Existing Conditions Photo 1
(Approximately 20’ drop-off on west side of the existing residence)
2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following
factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the
variance;
Staff Finding: There can be beneficial use of the property without the variance
and a garage, but that feature is common in the neighborhood and desired in
winter weather conditions.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance request for a three feet (3') side setback in lieu of
ten feet (10') is substantial.
11
6
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be
substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a
substantial detriment as a result of the variance;
Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered with the proposed attached garage. The proposed location is
where the Applicants currently park their vehicles. The existing residence at the
adjacent lot to the east (1051 Pine Lane) is constructed at a much higher
elevation and well over 25’ feet from the shared property line. This existing drive
at 1051 Pine Lane and a row of evergreen trees lend to the visual separation of
the lots.
Existing Conditions Photo 2
(Existing drive on the adjacent property approximately 25’ east of the shared property line)
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The placement of the garage will have no impact on existing
public services, including water and sewer.
12
7
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The Applicants purchased the property in 2014 without the
knowledge that the existing setback on the east side would not be wide enough
to construct an attached garage. The Applicants received an Improvement
Location Certificate (ILC) when they purchased the property that incorrectly
showed a much wider side setback between the existing residence and the east
property line.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: A detached garage could be developed at the lower elevation on
the west side of the property. However, there is a steep change in elevation of
approximately 20 feet. The potential for icy steps in winter conditions could pose
a safety risk for the Applicants who wish to age in place at the residence while
they enjoy retirement.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances
affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to
make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such
conditions or situations.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing
or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots
beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to
the applicable zone district regulations.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The proposed variance would be the least deviation from the
Development Code.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of
this Code for the zoning district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
Staff Finding: The Applicants request a setback variance to construct an
attached garage. This is an accessory use permitted by right in the R-2 (Two-
Family Residential) zoning district per Table 5-1 of the EPDC.
13
8
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff Finding: If the variance request is granted, Staff would like to condition the
Applicants/Owners to remove the existing driveway as shown on the Site Plan
(Attachment 4) prior to establishing a new driveway for the proposed garage. No
lot shall be allowed more than two (2) driveway openings pursuant to Appendix
D.III.B.5.d. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
Review Agency Comments
The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public
Works supports removal of the existing driveway access as shown on the Site Plan
(Attachment 5). Fire-resistance rating for the proposed garage addition is required in
accordance with the 2021 International Residential Code (IRC). Compliance with this
requirement will be reviewed by the Building Division when a building permit application
is received (Attachment 6).
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no comments were received.
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on September 13, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on September 13, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Advantages
This variance would allow the Applicants to construct an attached garage to protect their
vehicles during winter conditions and to reduce the safety risks of accessing their
vehicles via an exterior route.
Disadvantages
There are no known disadvantages of the variance to allow a reduced side setback
along the east property line to three feet (3') in lieu of the ten feet (10') side setback
required in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Zone District.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval with conditions of the proposed variance described in this
staff report, with setbacks consistent with the Site Plan (Attachment 4).
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Little or none.
14
9
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance request for three feet (3’) side setback along the east
property line for the subject property addressed as 1041 Pine Lane in the Town of Estes
Park, with conditions aforementioned above and with findings as outlined in the staff
report.
I move to approve the variance request for three feet (3’) side setback along the east
property line for the subject property addressed as 1041 Pine Lane in the Town of Estes
Park, with alternative conditions [state conditions] and with findings as outlined in the
staff report.
I move to approve the variance request for three feet (3’) side setback along the east
property line for the subject property addressed as 1041 Pine Lane in the Town of Estes
Park, without conditions and with findings as outlined in the staff report.
I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings [state
reason/findings].
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. 2014 Improvement Location Certificate (ILC)
4. Site Plan
5. Public Works Referral Comments
6. Building Division Referral Comments
.
15
16
17
18
1041 Pine Drive, Hood Residence Side Yard Variance Request
Standards for Review Reply:
1 . Special Circumstances Exist – the house is an existing house located on top a rock
outcropping to the west (about a 20’+- drop off in that direction), cut into the rock on the
northside when built, where an existing 5’ high cut currently exists and continues to deepen to
the north, and a steep embankment on the front or south side of the entry patio and walk toward
Pine Drive. This leaves only the east side as a potential location for this garage. The clients
bought the property 10 years ago with the intent to retire here full time and build this garage.
Retirement is here for them, and they desire an attached enclosed 2 car garage to protect them
and their vehicles in the winter. Based on the above topography of the site, the only side to
accomplish this is the east side. The recent survey for this project discovered the previously
believed east property line location at purchase (per ILC) is now 9’ closer to the house than
purchase documents portrayed. This will not allow for a 2-car garage, if meeting the 10’ side
yard setback. We are requesting a variance to 3’ side yard setback (measured to the garage
wall with a 2’ separation to the overhang). The property to the east, 1051 Pine Drive, is
developed and has existing drives which the closest drive is 25’ east of this property line and
several feet higher in elevation with built retaining structures in place, it has a home which are
much further from this requested variance, and we believe not effecting by this request.
2. We have studied many options and find no other option than the one requested, to obtain an
attached two car garage. We see a request for a two-car garage as consistent and reasonable
with most homes in the neighborhood and on the most single family lots of Estes Park. A
connected garage is seen here as essential to a retiring couple for their safety due to weather
risks going forward. We do not see this effecting the character of neighborhood as the adjacent
properties are all built on, the drive and home to the east has been in place for many years, and
the location of this proposed garage is where the owners currently park their cars when here on
weekends. The addition has no effect on water or sewer services to these or other houses in
the area. The owner purchased the property 10 years ago with the understanding the east
property line to be 29’+- at the NE house corner to property line and 38’+- at the SE house
corner to the property line, per the ILC. Those distances per the new correct survey have
reduced respectively to 19.8’ from 29’+- and 26.6’ from 38’+-. We are proposing to extend the
garage 8’ south of the existing house to even get it to a size that can hold two cars. Any further
extension to the south would present too steep of a grade from the proposed garage to Pine
Drive.
3. We do not believe this request is either general or recurrent in nature.
4. This variance has no effect on the size of the lots in the subdivision.
5. We believe a variance would represent the least deviation from the regulation that will afford
relief.
6. NA
7. TBD
19
20
21
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Community Development Department Planning Division
970-577-3721 planning@estes.org
PROJECT ROUTING REFERRAL FORM
AGENCY Public Works
REVIEWER Jennifer Waters
SIGNATURE
DATE 9/9/2024
☒ No Comments except as notes below
☐ Resubmittal Required
☐ Comments Provided via Comment Letter (attached)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Public Works does not object to approval of the setback variance based on the geologic
conditions that present difficulties in locating the garage elsewhere. Also, the applicant
intends to abandon an existing access and establish a new driveway for the proposed
garage. Access and drainage issues may otherwise be addressed during the building
permit process.
22
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Community Development Department Planning Division
970-577-3721 planning@estes.org
PROJECT ROUTING REFERRAL FORM
AGENCY Building Department
REVIEWER Dan Wester
SIGNATURE
DATE 9/11/2024
☐ No Comments
☐ Resubmittal Required
☐ Comments Provided via Comment Letter (attached)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
23
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Community Development Department Planning Division
970-577-3721 planning@estes.org
2021 International Residential Code (IRC)
CHAPTER 3 BUILDING PLANNING
TABLE R302.1(1)
EXTERIOR WALLS
EXTERIOR WALL
ELEMENT
MINIMUM FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING
MINIMUM FIRE
SEPARATION
DISTANCE
Walls
Fire-
resistance
rated
1 hour—tested in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263 or Section 703.3
of the International Building Code with exposure from both sides
0 feet
Not fire-
resistance
rated
0 hours
≥ 5 feet
Projectio
ns
Not allowed NA < 2 feet
Fire-
resistance
rated
1 hour on the underside, or heavy timber, or fire-retardant-treated
wooda, b
≥ 2 feet to < 5 feet
Not fire-
resistance
rated
0 hours
≥ 5 feet
Opening
s in walls
Not allowed NA < 3 feet
25%
maximum of
wall area
0 hours
3 feet
Unlimited 0 hours 5 feet
Penetrat
ions All Comply with Section R302.4 < 3 feet
None required 3 feet
For SI: 1 foot =
304.8 mm. NA =
Not Applicable.
a. The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the
underside of the eave overhang if fireblocking is provided from the wall top plate
to the underside of the roof sheathing.
b. The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the
underside of the rake overhang where gable vent openings are not installed.
PDF from: http://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2021P2/chapter-3-building-
planning#IRC2021P2_Pt03_Ch03_SecR302.1
24
25
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Date: October 1, 2024
Application: Variance Request for River Setback
375 Moraine Avenue
Greg Davis, FCEP Properties, LLC., owner
Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc., applicant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
Future Land Use Designation (Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan): Downtown
Zoning District: CO (Commercial Outlying)
Site Area: 1.6 Acres (71,791 SF)
☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE ☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
The Applicant requests approval of a variance to reduce the river setback to 5.5’
rather than the required 30’ under Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(b) of the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC).
Background:
The Fun City amusement park consists of two parcels bisected by the Big Thompson
River. A variance is sought to the required river setback on the north parcel for the
construction of a new amusement ride, a spinning coaster. The spinning coaster would
be built in the same general footprint of the existing bumper car building, which is
proposed to be demolished.
The zoning, land use, and future land use designation of surrounding properties is
summarized in the table below. Historic aerial images show the existing bumper car
26
2
building has existed since at least 1985 and County records indicate the site was
developed in the early to mid-1970s, prior to the adoption of river setback standards.
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Future Land Use
Designation (Comp Plan) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Downtown CO (Commercial Outlying) Amusement Park
North Downtown/ Suburban Estate CD (Commercial Downtown)
& E (Estate)
Office Building/
Single Family
Residential
South Downtown CO (Commercial Outlying) Amusement Park
East Downtown CO (Commercial Outlying) Mixed Commercial
West Downtown/ Mountains &
Foothills
CO (Commercial Outlying &
EV RE1 (Larimer County
Rural Estate)
Amusement Park/
Moraine Ave
Vicinity Map
Moraine Ave
27
3
Zoning Map
Variance Description
The applicant desires to replace the existing bumper car building with a new
amusement ride in the same general footprint which encroaches into the required 30’
river setback.
The applicant requests a variance from Estes Park Development Code Sec.
7.6.E.1.a(2)(b) which requires a 30’ setback from the annual high-water mark of the
river. The amusement ride would be constructed as close as 5.5’ from the highwater
mark of the Big Thompson River. The existing building is located approximately 4.7’
from the river at its closest point.
CD
Subject
Parcel
E
Moraine Ave
CO
28
4
Site Images
29
5
Proposed Site Plan
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are
not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. Practical
difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards,
provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or
impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this
Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
30
6
Staff Finding: The site was fully developed prior to the adoption of river setbacks
in the Estes Park Development Code, creating a special circumstance.
The requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent
and purposes of Section 7.6 of the Development Code – Wetlands and Stream
Corridor Protection. The purpose and intent of that section is described as:
The following requirements and standards are intended to promote,
preserve and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological,
aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river
corridors, associated riparian areas and wetlands provide.
The hydraulic function of the river corridor will not be negatively impacted by the
variance. The hydraulics of a river refer to the depth, velocity, and direction of
flow. The proposed amusement ride would not impact the hydraulics of the river
in normal conditions. In a flood event the hydraulic function of the river would not
be impacted more than the current condition, as mandated by Estes Park
Municipal Code Section 18.04.190, which prohibits encroachments that result in
any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
Van Horn Engineering has demonstrated compliance with this requirement
consistent with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance. The
Town’s floodplain consultant, Galloway Engineering, concurs with Van Horn’s
findings and states “the real impact of the proposed site plan changes would be
fewer blocked obstructions in the floodway, corresponding to increased
conveyance area available during a flood event.”
There will be no impact on the biological and ecological functions or aesthetic,
recreational and educational functions of the river corridor greater than the
current condition.
In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the
variance;
Staff Finding: The existing bumper car building appears to be obsolete and in
need of replacement. Despite being legally built in the 1970s, it cannot be
replaced due to the adoption of river setbacks after it was built. There are no
other open areas on the site which would allow for construction of the proposed
replacement ride, meaning beneficial use of the property is greatly limited.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial compared to the current
condition, and, in fact, slightly reduces the setback encroachment.
31
7
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be
substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a
substantial detriment as a result of the variance;
Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be
substantially altered with the variance and adjoining properties will not suffer a
substantial determent. The new amusement ride will be located in the same
general footprint as the existing building.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The variance will not adversely affect the delivery of public
services.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: Unknown.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The predicament cannot be mitigated through any other method.
2. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances
affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to
make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such
conditions or situations.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
3. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing
or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots
beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to
the applicable zone district regulations.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
4. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief.
32
8
5. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of
this Code for the zoning district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
6. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff Finding: Staff does not recommend any conditions.
Review Agency Comments
Public Works is not opposed to the variance request and finds the associated
Development Plan is generally acceptable, subject to technical corrections. The
development will require approval of a Floodplain Development Permit.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, Staff has received no inquiries
regarding the variance request.
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on September 13, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on September 13, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
● Sign posted on property by applicant.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Little or none.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance with the findings as outlined in the staff report.
I move to deny the variance with the following findings [state reasons/findings].
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
33
9
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Site Plan
34
35
36
37
38
17 July 2024
Fun City
Attn: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner, Town of Estes Park, Colorado
375 Moraine Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Statement of Intent for a Requested River Setback Variance
Mr. Hornbeck,
The intent of this letter is to detail a requested encroachment into the prescribed setback
to the Big Thompson River.
The Fun City property consists of two parcels, one on the north side of the Big Thompson
River and one on the south. Given that all proposed changes are on the northern parcel,
any reference to parcels in this letter refers to this parcel unless otherwise noted. The
subject parcel is bordered by U.S.-36 (Moraine Ave) to the north, Crags Dr to the east,
Estes Park Brewery to the west, and the Big Thompson River to the south. The Larimer
County Assessor parcel number for the subject parcel is 3525392001, and the lot is zoned
commercial outlying (CO) in the Town of Estes Park. There currently exists an enclosed
building housing a bumper car attraction on the southeasterly portion of the parcel,
approximately 4.7’ at its closest point from the north edge of the existing floodwall on the
northern bank of the Big Thompson River. The best available aerial imagery suggests that
this building has existed in its current location since at least 1993. The owner and
applicant, Greg Davis, is requesting that the existing bumper car building be removed and
replaced with an elevated spinning roller coaster. A letter was issued by Galloway
regarding the flood blockages on site, in which the existing bumper car building was
VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
LAND SURVEYS
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
IMPROVEMENT PLATS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SANITARY ENGINEERING
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
39
shown as a flood blockage. The pillars of the proposed roller coaster and fence around the
perimeter also serve as flood blockages, meaning there is no proposed changes to the
flood blockage locations on site. This proposed roller coaster will be no closer to the Big
Thompson River than the existing bumper car building. It should be noted that the
construction of the proposed roller coaster will commence immediately upon demolition
of the existing bumper car building. A setback of 5.5’ to the Big Thompson River is
being proposed, 24.5’ less than the setback prescribed by §7.6.E.1.a.(1) of the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC). See the accompanying site plan for better detail. This
variance is being requested as part of an ongoing land use project currently undergoing
the development plan review process. While the development review process is still
ongoing, the departmental referral comments have been received and addressed in a
separate document.
For further clarification or information please contact me with the contact details below.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you in the future
regarding this project,
Regards,
_________________________________
Jacob Gruver, for Van Horn Engineering on behalf of the owner, Greg Davis
Project Manager
jacobg@vanhornengineering.com
(970)-586-9388 ext. 11
40
41